Morning and good Monday, everyone.

1.4 is due tomorrow (by the end of the day). Remember: your 1.4 is about your major paper research question. As such, your claim should include and argue for that question. For example:

For my first major paper, I am researching the question of how, in Grizzly Man, the notion of “nature” is understood differently by the voice-over narrator (Werner Herzog) and the film’s protagonist (Timothy Treadwell) and to what effects on the film’s audience. This question matters because it attends to the potential bias in the film’s voice-over narration, as well as to how that bias opens up a political and cultural tension between the narrator, the subject, and the audience. What’s more, the question will serve as a launching pad into my new sound-script, which follows a more “traditional” model of voice-over narration comparable to popular documentaries like Planet Earth.

Note how the claim states the question; states why it matters, for whom it matters, how it matters, and to what effects; and then proceeds to engage the question with the new sound-script.

Also, Blog #4 (Conference Thought Piece) is due on Thursday (before class).

Please note that your main claim for your MP1 should be about your new sound-script and why it matters. Here’s an example claim:

I propose a new sound-script for the film, Grizzly Man. This new sound-script is a more traditional mode of voice-over narration, which, rather than explicitly arguing for or against its subjects, supplements the visuals with data and context. While some might argue that this proposed voice-over will simply “tell” and not “show” information, such arguments elide the subtle complexities of voice-over narration in nature documentaries. Taking the popular television show, Planet Earth, as a model, my proposed sound-script historicizes nature and wildlife in Alaska and — without judgment or hyperbole — articulates Treadwell’s relation with that nature and wildlife. Consequently, the new sound-script by necessity attends to how Herzog’s narration relies upon the conventions of the nature documentary genre only to mobilize them in the service of social commentary. The implication of this commentary-documentary conflation is not simply that all voice-over narration is somehow biased, but that bias emerges from a particular set of political purposes. In the case of my proposed sound-script, what’s at stake, then, is the future of both how nature and wildlife are represented in film and how audiences understand the conditions of those representations.

Here, the claim is about the sound-script (and not the film). It then unpacks what the sound-script is doing, how it is doing it (with detail and counterarguments), and the trajectory or future of what it is doing.

I hope both of these examples help you along. And no worries. We have a few more classes — plus your first conferences — to discuss the major paper.

Be in touch with questions and take care!